WHAT EVIDENCE IS THERE FOR GOD?

Answer: To the atheist/naturalist the only thing that qualifies as "evidence" (something that we can gain knowledge from and make inferences from) is something that is "testable/empirical." But "empirical/testable evidence" is only one of many different ways to gain knowledge or truth. This means that although science is SUFFICIENT to gain knowledge/truth, it is NOT NECESSARY for knowledge/truth. Necessity excludes other methods or possibilities, sufficiency does not. Here are some SUFFICIENT methods to gain knowledge/truth other than through the scientific method of experimentation and observation: moral truth (Science cannot prove that rape is evil), logical truth, historical truth, and experiential truth.

With all that being said, hopefully you can see that "Science" (i.e. the scientific method of experimentation and observation) is SUFFICIENT to gain knowledge, but not NECESSARY to gain knowledge. In other words, there are some things we know and can know that cannot be proven scientifically.

Here are6 different evidences outside the bible that point to a Personal Creator (God):

#1 The Origin of the Universe--The universe had a start - what caused it? We only have 3 options (universe caused itself, nothing caused it, or SOMETHING that is uncaused, timeless, spaceless, immaterial, personal, and very powerful).

P1: Everything that exists has an explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause.

P2: If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God* (*please see note below that explains the definition of "God")

P3: The universe exists.

P4: Therefore, the universe has an explanation of its existence (from 1, 3).

C: Therefore, the explanation of the universe’s existence is God (from 2, 4).

*Think of what the universe is: all of space-time reality, including all matter and energy. It follows that if the universe has a cause of its existence, that cause must be a non-physical, immaterial being beyond space and time. Now there are only two sorts of things that could fit that description: either an abstract object like a number or else an unembodied mind. But abstract objects can’t cause anything. That’s part of what it means to be abstract. The number seven, for example, can’t cause any effects. So if there is a cause of the universe, it must be a transcendent, unembodied Mind, which is what Christians understand God to be.

#1a

P1:Everything that begins to exist has a cause.

P2:The universe began to exist.

C: Therefore, the universe has a cause.

Once we reach the conclusion that the universe has a cause, we can then analyze what properties such a cause must have and assess its theological significance.

As the cause of space and time, it must transcend space and time and therefore exist timelessly and non-spatially (at least without the universe). This transcendent cause must therefore be changeless and immaterial because (1) anything that is timeless must also be unchanging and (2) anything that is changeless must be non-physical and immaterial since material things are constantly changing at the molecular and atomic levels. Such a cause must be without a beginning and uncaused, at least in the sense of lacking any prior causal conditions, since there cannot be an infinite regress of causes. Ockham’s Razor (the principle that states that we should not multiply causes beyond necessity) will shave away any other causes since only one cause is required to explain the effect. This entity must be unimaginably powerful, if not omnipotent, since it created the universe without any material cause.

#2 Evidence of a Personal Creator through moral values:

P1: If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.

P2: Objective moral values and duties do exist.

C: Therefore, God exists.

I have heard many people argue, "I can't believe in God because of all the evil in the world." This statement actually affirms premise 2 in the above argument. So while on the surface this sounds like an argument against the existence of God, this actually turns out to be a great argument FOR the existence of God.

The post-modern relativists (those that believe all truth and morality is relative) that want to reject premise 2 of the argument should consider their ways carefully. When they affirm the evil committed by the Nazis they effectively deny their own worldview; however, if they deny any evil committed by the Nazis, then they deny their humanity.

It is philosophically bankrupt for a naturalist/atheist to talk about objective morality (some things actually are evil/wrong, and some things actually are good/right). Atheists/agnostics use terms like “evil, wrong, etc.” in the objective sense because it makes them feel good to have words to describe what they know intuitively to be true, but when you look thoroughly within their worldview (we are just random molecules bouncing in space) for the grounding that could make those terms coherent, you come up empty.

#3 The universe operates by uniform laws of nature (the universe is fine tuned for life).

P1: The fine-tuning of the universe is due to either physical necessity, chance, or design.

P2: It is not due to physical necessity or chance.

C: Therefore, it is due to design.

Premise 1 simply lists the three possibilities for explaining the presence of this amazing fine-tuning of the universe: physical necessity, chance, or design. The first alternative holds that there’s some unknown Theory of Everything (TOE) that would explain the way the universe is. It had to be that way, and there was really no chance or little chance of the universe’s not being life-permitting. By contrast, the second alternative states that the fine-tuning is due entirely to chance. It’s just an accident that the universe is life-permitting, and we’re the lucky beneficiaries. The third alternative rejects both of these accounts in favor of an intelligent Mind behind the cosmos, who designed the universe to permit life. The question is this: Which of these alternatives is the best explanation?

The fine-tuning of the universe is plausibly due neither to physical necessity nor to chance. It follows that the fine-tuning is therefore due to design unless the design hypothesis can be shown to be even more implausible than its competitors.

#4 Consciousness

P1: Either consciousness can come from unconscious inanimate objects, or it only comes from consciousness.

P2: Consciousness cannot come from unconscious inanimate objects.

C: Therefore, human consciousness could not come from inanimate "random molecules", but instead must have come from a conscious being* (See note below).

#5 The discovery of DNA—Scientists agree that DNA is similar to a computer code/program or a language.Programs have PROGRAMMERS

P1: All specified information (to perform a function) comes from a programmer.

P2: DNA has specified information (to perform a function).

C: Therefore, DNA came from a programmer.

Who or what is the best explanation for the programmed DNA? You could push the problem back one step and say “aliens from another planet” but then the same question applies to them and their “DNA”. You end up in an infinite regress until you can come to a “programmer” whose reason for existence is NOT found outside himself; this entity’s reason for existence is in HIMSELF. This is what we mean by “God is the GROUNDING for intelligibility, our laws of logic, morality, meaning, value, and purpose. Notice, we do NOT say, “BELIEF in God is the grounding for…” You don’t need to believe in God to use those faculties. God has wired those faculties in all of us—it is part of our humanity. There are exceptions to those faculties because we live in a fallen world corrupted by sin.

#6 The Laws of Logic

It is ironic how atheists shout so vociferously because they think they stand on some intellectual high ground with the most “logic and reason” undergirding their beliefs. The atheist has not realized all the logic and reason he stands on and shouts from is mere tinder that will quickly turns to ash when the theist comes and asks, “How does naturalism account for the laws of logic?” In other words, “How does the atheist account for the objectivity of the laws he so proudly thinks his beliefs reflect more of?”

If logic is just mere convention/human convention/subjective (i.e. not absolute/objective), then no absolute/objective arguments for or against the existence of God can be raised, and the atheist has nothing to work with. If logic is not absolute, then logic cannot be used to prove or disprove anything.

The only coherent and consistent explanation for the LAWS of Logic is that they are GROUNDED in the same unembodied mind that grounds objective morality. Atheists, therefore, use God's laws of logic to argue against the logic of God, just as they also use God’s morality to argue against the goodness of God. In short, atheists have to borrow from the theistic worldview just to argue against the theistic worldview because the naturalist worldview doesn’t have the resources to justify those arguments coherently and consistently.

In conclusion, we all believe in an eternal something--either eternal matter/energy/multiverse or an eternal Mind. Atheists seem to be on the "eternal matter/energy" side, thus, violating the First and Second Law of Thermodynamics, as well as not being able to explain the nature of our existence (consciousness, reason, information, love, humor, beauty, laws of logic and morality) coherently with mindless "energy". On the other hand, Christians believe in an "eternal Mind (God) that can coherently explain consciousness, reason, information, love, humor, beauty, laws of logic and morality coherently and consistently because these are activities of a MIND!

"There are not many options – essentially just two. Either human intelligence ultimately owes its origin to mindless matter; or there is a Creator. It is strange that some people claim that it is their intelligence that leads them to prefer the first to the second."--Dr. John Lennox